llamer
Bluelighter
did you read the whole thread? someone at the beginning who was one of the first to post his TR said it was comparable to oxy and named the ways
Don't take more than 20mg first (after an allergy test), and yeah you can smoke it.
Right. How old are you, like 12?
Well I can understand his anger and I understand why you'd be pissed at his way of expressing it. But hey, maby people don't have any love for the classics anymore, some with legit reasons (e.g. legal status). This is especially true in the psychedelic department. Who even takes mescaline anymore? To most it's the best long acting serotonergic psychedelic out there.
Morphine is a shitty opiate in my experience. It's just a matter of taste - to each their own.
Let's get this straight though: He does have a valid point in that it is definitely more dangerous to use novel chemicals, some of them not even having been considered for use in humans. Heroin was introduced very hastily. The marketing campaign was huge. Every other doctor ended up taking it believing it would not be as addictive... Needless to say, the marketing division of Bayer's Elberfelder Farbenfabriken knew exactly what they were doing when they pushed it as hard as they did.
In that way, diamorphine is a good example for why it is not good to take novel chemicals. Nobody was prepared for the intensity of the dependence/withdrawls. You just couldn't make an educated decision whether to take the substance or not.
With morphine and diamorphine you are on much safer grounds than you are with U-47700 today. You should expect to run a much higher risk of experiencing unanticipated adverse effects since it has not been studied in humans. It's all guesswork. We just don't know our bodies well enough to foresee a drug's effects. 9 out of 10 people might be okay and the 10th subject drops dead on the spot or has his cock rot off or gives birth to phocomelic babies. :/
There is a reason why drugs have to go through extensive trials today (thalidomide and the phocomelic new borns of which only half survived played a large role). Since I was heavily criticized for digging out the thalidomide case before, I will say that it is not only the most prominent disasters of this kind and the one with the biggest impact, but it also shows perfectly well how unpredictable drug effects can be. I'd recommend whomever isn't perfectly familiar with it to read into it. Also check out TGN1412 if you are interested, another unexpected disaster, thanks to Phase 1 trials only a few people died. Now do you want to be that phase 1 patient? Please don't say it's different with U-47700 since it's an opiate opposed to an immune modulator like the two drugs I just mentioned. Of course it's different, but the unpredictability of this opiate is significant nonetheless.
Personally I am quite adventurous, but I know fully well that it's not very clever reaching for some novel creation instead of a 'classic'. Classics aside from the naturally occuring opiates (codeine, morphine, less so noscapine, thebaine and it's mu-opiodergic metabolites being quite toxic actually) would primarily be all the half synthetical modifications of them out there, some of which are just molecularly rearranged, others are a product of simple reduction or oxidation. Some of these half synthetics can even be considered endogenous when we look at human morphine pharmacokinetics.
But even those are neither predictable nor safe. Nobody who hadn't experienced it first hand would've guessed how much more euphoric and dependence forming morphine would become with those two acetyl groups. Throughout the 19th century we found a shit ton of new pharmaceuticals, a few of which are still the undisputed champions at what they are supposed to do (e.g. aspirin and heroin), others evened the road for more popular substances (e.g. phenacetine for paracetamol). What I'm saying is that we had an idea of what acetylation can do. In many cases compounds would be deacetylated by merely being brought into aqueous solution, through temperature or pH fluctuations, in others our deacetylases would take care of it quickly. Still, nobody could have been prepared.
That's why we have no idea what to expect from this little bad boy either. There is not a doubt it would be much safer to consume trusted opiates instead.
U-50488 would spark my interest personally. I'd love a substance that can induce that sweet salviaesque insanity, somewhere between tea time with the gods and a complete utterly surreal nightmare.
Nope, that's just wrong. Legal in a sense that you cannot be prosecuted for mere possession, trade or manufacture sure, but as soon as the authorities find out the substance is intended for experiencing pharmacological effects, you are violating drug laws in many developed countries. It depends on where you live, but it's very rare that you are safe to sell or purchase novel drugs for how fucked up they get you. Every psychoactive substance is subject to legal regulations in Germany, even if only implicitely so.
In an ideal world I would agree. It's a sad reality though that people make the wrong decisions. Legalizing all drugs now would be a disaster. It requires the people to be well educated in order for them to be able to make adequate decisions. Shit, most medical professions don't even know a whole lot about recreational drugs, not even psychiatrists. I agree that the illegal status of most major drugs has introduced massive problems, especially in terms of law and health, but legalization isn't without downsides either.